THE SURPLUS ENERGY THEORY OF PLAY. 5 



often occurs an energy somewhat in excess of immediate 

 needs, and there comes also such rest, now of this faculty 

 and now of that, as permits the bringing of it up to a 

 state of high efficiency by the repair which follows 

 waste." If we add to this the fact that such overflow 

 of energy is explained by Spencer physiologically as a 

 reintegration which more than balances the using up 

 of brain cells, thus producing in the cells an " excessive 

 readiness to decompose and discharge," we have become 

 gfiquainted with the foundation of Spencer's theory of 

 play. It is perfectly evident that it has more in com- 

 mon with Schiller's theory than the mere name; that, 

 indeed, in its " grounds " it fully coincides with the 

 passage cited from the Esthetics letters.* In one point 

 only does Spencer go beyond Schiller's conception: he 

 connects the idea of imitation with that of the overflow 

 of energy. And it is exactly at this point that Spencer 

 seems to me to have erred. I will return to his own 

 text and endeavour to show that he can not substantiate 

 his data. After he has given the foregoing physiologi- 

 cal explanation of surplus energy, he goes on: " Every 

 one of these mental powers then being subject to this 

 law, that its organ, when dormant for an interval 

 longer than ordinary, becomes unusually ready to act, 

 unusually ready to have its correlative feelings aroused, 

 giving an unusual readiness to enter upon all the cor- 

 relative activities; it happens that a simulation of these 

 activities is easil}^ fallen into, where circumstances 

 offer, in place of the real activities. Hence play of all 

 kinds." " It is," says E. Wallaschek, in ' agreement 



* It is of course possil^le that Spencer may, notwitlistanding 

 this coincidence, have arrived at the idea of surplus energy inde- 

 pendently of Schiller. 



